Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

I know math is hard, but there simply are not enough administrators to account for all the money. This is the typical union canard.

The truth is, at many colleges, the full time faculty have gobbled up all the salary and benefits, despite teaching a small minority (~25%) of the courses. They limit the pay and hours of the part timers who teach 3/4 of the classes. So the part time faculty are limited to 60% weekly load hours, less per hour, and locked into a cycle of lower middle class or outright poverty.

Typical union greed: They accrue all the goods for a small minority, at the expense of the unemployed or underemployed.

The best part is, even the janitors have tenure. So what gets cut first? Classes - the ones taught by part timers.

Except that remaining silent might get you arrested. In a Terry stop detention, you have to at least give the police your name. If you really are innocent, it may be best to explain the situation. For example, if you locked your keys in your car and had to break a window to get them, would you really not tell the cop this and instead remain silent?

Except, FALSE. You are not entitled to an attorney when an officer is asking preliminary, pre-arrest questions, like in a traffic stop. So a cop pulls you over and asks you if you have been drinking and you just stay silent? That would be dumb in many situations. I've seen jailhouse lawyers go to jail because they were trying to outsmart cops, too clever by a half.

I know a guy who got arrested for trespassing because he was working out at his old high school gym after hours. Instead of telling the police, "I have implicit permission from Coach XXXX, just call him," instead he just thought he would be clever and say, "I'll just remain silent." Guess what happened then.

I've gotten out of tickets by admitting to a speed I know the cops clocked me at, but who wanted me to admit to a higher speed (I didn't). Had I claimed I was going 65 in a 65, or remained silent, when I damn well knew he had me at 74, I would have been ticketed. Instead, let off with a warning.

And in most states it is not a felony to lie to a cop. It is to lie to a federal agent.

Point being, generic legal advice worded in absolutes is worth roughly what you paid for it.

I'm a lawyer, and I think the professor's generic, one-size-fits-all advice is clearly wrong. In fact, legal advice not specifically tailored to the individual and the facts of his case is arguably per se malpractice. Of course, this itself is an absolute. But in fairness, it is a maxim, not legal advice.

Disagree? OK, well I am a lawyer, and you are presumably not. So now you're going to give a lawyer advice how to deal with a cop? #

IAALBNYLSDNROTALA (I Am A Lawyer But Not Your Lawyer So Do Not Rely On This As Legal Advice)

Oh please, as if law professors are infallible? Appeal to authority much? You realize law professors disagree with each other on just about everything? Ironic that all the locker room lawyers here are telling Haselton not to give legal advice.

Here's a pro tip from a lawyer: Any lawyer who gives you generic advice in the form of absolutes is full of shit. There are many situations in which a guilty person *not* talking to police will hurt you more than carefully talking to them. I've talked my way out of several tickets by being courteous, respectful, cooperative, and yes, even admitting to a little speeding (but not to my actual speed). Had I lied - or remained silent - when I knew for a fact the cop had clocked me at a certain speed, I would have certainly been cited. Cops are so shocked by real courtesy and respect, it can go a long way. And good lawyers typically don't pull the "I am a lawyer!" card with cops until asked.

Most non-lawyers who try to act lawyerly with cops often make matters worse...

IAALBNYLSDNROTALA (I Am A Lawyer But Not Your Lawyer So Do Not Rely On This As Legal Advice)

The amount of poverty (or near-poverty) here compared to my home country (Australia) astounds me. Huge portions of the population barely getting by...the run-down infrastructure etc. Not to say there's not nice areas too... but it's really inconsistent. You don't see that at home (due no doubt in part to a more progressive tax structure and universal medical/housing safety-nets)

Unfortunately, the main function of government in the US has become the opposite of the original Lockean purpose of the social contract - i.e., separating citizens from their wealth and giving it to others, while taking a huge cut. We have 45 million fucking people on food stamps! TWICE the population of Australia!

And what have we gotten for it? One of our Founding Fathers, Ben Franklin, said the worst thing you could do for the poor is to make them comfortable, lest they not want to escape it. Our "poor" in the US have cable TV and cellphones and are suffering from diabetes due to their obesity. Just enough to keep them voting for the Party of Handouts, exactly as planned...

He certainly is not the king of vacation days. That honor falls to President George W. Bush

Not analogous, since Bush never presided over a sequester, let alone was one his idea, let alone did Bush threaten to veto a bill offering him budgeting discretion on a sequester, and then close the White House to tours and stop the Blue Angels, and then cry, "we have no money!"

And those golf trips and vacations every 4 months Obama takes? How much do those cost taxpayers? Like a million dollars each flight?

Any sentient being knows Obama threatened to veto congressional bills to give him some budgeting discretion in the sequester, so he can blame Republicans for the arbitrary cuts. So far, based on polls, the public doesn't seem to be falling for it, despite the media not reporting this key little fact.

The result is that thousands of people in the middle of two-year carrier contracts will have to use Android 2.3, known as Gingerbread, for the foreseeable future. Motorola had promised owners Android 4.0 support, which would bring a host of new features and security updates. Instead they are stuck on Gingerbread, an operating system that was already a year old when some bought their Moto phones.